quote:An inquiry has been ordered by Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair after a Muslim constable was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in London. Sir Ian says he wants an "urgent review of the situation and a full report".
The Sun newspaper said the officer was reassigned on "moral grounds" as he objected to Israeli actions in Lebanon.
But the Association of Muslim Police Officers said it was a "welfare issue" - the officer had Middle Eastern relatives and felt unsafe in that role.
They seem to be claiming that he felt unsafe because of his connections to Lebanon (his wife is Lebanese) and Syria (his father is Syrian) and that it's because of this, rather than any moral issue, that he asked to be excused from his duties. While I can kind of understand his concerns - doesn't every police officer come across that pretty frequently in his or her day-to-day duties?
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was quite a long chunk on this story on Radio 4 this morning and there doesn't seem to be enough information to make a proper judgement.
Police officers can apparently be excused duty where they have a conflict of interest (for example, members of their familt are suspects in an investigation in which they are involved), or if they are particularly at risk of reprisals (officers may not be asked to police the area where they grew up, or where their family lives).
We don't yet know what the Met took into account when making a decision on "welfare grounds".
As a matter of principle, officers should work wherever they are assigned. The example of black officers (or, for that matter, any officer politically opposed to the BNP) policing a BNP rally was raised in an earlier thread when we discussed the Glasgow firefighters who refused to leaflet a Pride march, and I think that's even more relevant to this situation.
-------------------- I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Embra: As a matter of principle, officers should work wherever they are assigned. The example of black officers (or, for that matter, any officer politically opposed to the BNP) policing a BNP rally was raised in an earlier thread when we discussed the Glasgow firefighters who refused to leaflet a Pride march, and I think that's even more relevant to this situation.
But doesn't this amount to a re-imposition of the Penal Acts, Embra? A devout Muslim or Presbyterian firefighter might not feel that leafletting gay pride marches is compatible with his or her faith; a Jewish copper might not want to search, say, for stolen property in the blood drains at Smithfield Market. To be utterly inflexible on these points is effectively to reserve these jobs for secularists, no?
I don't quite understand how the Metropolitan Police felt that this particular case deserved exemption, though. Perhaps it's a case of political correctness gone mad?
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
There's no suggestion, however, that he refused to do his duties; merely that he asked to be transferred. Police Officers request transfers on all kinds of grounds. I know one who asked not to be assigned to crowd control at football matches because he didn't like football. Since lots of people do like football, this was fairly quickly and easily granted.
My understanding of the safety issue isn't that he felt unsafe at work, but that he felt his family's safety was at risk because he lived in an area with a large Lebanese community, and there have been cases of organisations like Il Muhijaroun and the Saviour Sect targeting the families of Muslim police officers who live within predominantly ethnic communities. On purely operational grounds, there's probably a case for saying that his presence there presented something of a risk since there exists circumstances in which he could be compromised, in much the same way as Irish police officers tended not to be assigned anti-terrorist duties in the 1980s and 1990s.
But anyway, as I say, there's a big difference between "asking for a transfer" and "refusing to do his job." If it was the case that he refused to fulfil his duties guarding the Israeli embassy for whatever reason, then I would condemn it out of hand. But that doesn't appear to be the case.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But wasn't he refusing to do this duty - I didn't say job - by asking for a transfer? He was part of the Diplomatic Protection Group, and I imagine that a good chunk of their duties include prtotecting diplomats; he asked for a transfer out of the Group when the Lebanon-Israel confilct happened and now he's back again. He refused to do his duty of protecting diplomats, as part of the Diplomatic Protection Group, during the time of the conflict.
I agree with the Met's stance on this, according to the BBC report:
quote:The authority, which has also asked for a report, said officers often had to undertake duties where the subject conflicted with their personal beliefs.
Dara, I find it just as unacceptable that your friend was excused football crowd control duty because he doesn't like football.
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette: But wasn't he refusing to do this duty - I didn't say job - by asking for a transfer? He was part of the Diplomatic Protection Group, and I imagine that a good chunk of their duties include prtotecting diplomats; he asked for a transfer out of the Group when the Lebanon-Israel confilct happened and now he's back again. He refused to do his duty of protecting diplomats, as part of the Diplomatic Protection Group, during the time of the conflict.
But he asked for a transfer, he didn't refuse to do his duties in the interim. Surely people should be allowed to ask for transfers to other departments? If you apply for another position within your organisation, are you de facto refusing to do your duty in your current role? Of course not.
quote:I agree with the Met's stance on this, according to the BBC report:
quote:The authority, which has also asked for a report, said officers often had to undertake duties where the subject conflicted with their personal beliefs.
Dara, I find it just as unacceptable that your friend was excused football crowd control duty because he doesn't like football.
But he wasn't excused. He asked for a transfer to other duties. In the meantime, he continued to do crowd control. My understanding is that officers ask for and are granted transfers all the time, because of personality clashes, because they've moved house and another police station is handier, because they're bored with their current duties.
In this instance, the officer claimed that his family were under threat, which may or may not be true, but is certainly a legitimate reason to grant a transfer. If, as The Sun says, it was on a moral or ideological basis, then that's another matter entirely, but the fact that he's back on duty now would seem to argue against that.
There is no suggestion that this officer refused to do his duties while they were his duties. He just asked to be assigned different duties using a pre-existing and widely-used transfer system. This request was granted. In the mean time, since this is not an immediate process, he would have continued to do his duties as they were.
We can argue about whether or not the request should have been granted, but if the wherewithal exists to grant a request, and if there's precedent for allowing officers to transfer if they fear reprisals, I don't see why not.
Yes, the police should be above moral or ideological considerations. But if, as Supt Babu and this officer maintain, there is a credible threat to his family, then the Met have a duty of care towards him to mitigate that threat.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
he lived in an area with a large Lebanese community, and there have been cases of organisations like Il Muhijaroun and the Saviour Sect targeting the families of Muslim police officers who live within predominantly ethnic communities.
I was wondering about this, and the issue of Irish police officers was also brought up during the interviews I heard on the radio.
quote:Superintendent Fizz said:
To be utterly inflexible on these points is effectively to reserve these jobs for secularists, no?
No, it's to reserve the jobs for people who recognise that service of the population at large might involve their coming into contact with people, ideas or situations that they don't agree with as private individuals.
If your religion or other moral code does indeed actually prohibit you from particular duties then it may be that a career in general public service is not for you. But if you simply have an objection to certain duties based on your own moral code or preferences, then I think, hard luck.
In this case, though, no-one was refusing to do anything (different from the Glasgow firefighters who did not turn up for work).
-------------------- I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Embra: If your religion or other moral code does indeed actually prohibit you from particular duties then it may be that a career in general public service is not for you. But if you simply have an objection to certain duties based on your own moral code or preferences, then I think, hard luck.
I don't think any civilised society should really be telling public servants to check their personal morality at the door, Embra. ETA: I don't see why a large organisation like the Met. Police, or the Fire Brigade, shouldn't try to accommodate the personal beliefs of an employee as long as it is compatible with the law. In the OP, as Dara has explained, it is a safety issue and I certainly have no problem with that.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've be very interested to find out how the views of people in this thread compare with their views on this situation.
Posts: 1710 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlueStar: I've be very interested to find out how the views of people in this thread compare with their views on this situation.
This officer was not refusing to do his duties, however, he was just asking for alternate duties. It's not a matter of insubordination, like the Glasgow firefighters, nor, on the face of it would it be a matter of personal ideology.
None of the firefighters were arguing that they were under threat from the gay rights marchers or from people opposed to the gay rights marchers, it was that it was against their beliefs.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there was a legitimate safety issue surrounding the officer, or his family, then his employers have a duty of care to ensure that all necessary steps are taken. Yes, police officers are expected to be in dangerous situations die to the nature of the job, but nobody should ask for unreasonable danger - imagine asking one cop to step into a riot situation aremed with a water pistol? So I have no issue with an officer making a request to have his duties changed. I don't see any evidence that he refused to do his duty in the meantime.
If an officer asked for different duties because of political or religious grounds, then I would have an issue. Politics and religion are checked at the door, and if the Met pandered to a political whim of an officer, then the implications are very serious. And it may sound harsh, but if your religion or moral code actually prohibits you from doing something, then you should not be in a job where you may have a conflict.
-------------------- There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane? Posts: 735 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't agree with you Dara, not on a moral level anyway (but what's new there eh? ) His duties as part of the Diplomatic protection Group was to protect diplomats and [speculation alert] it seems to me that when he discovered which diplomats he was to be protecting, he requested the transfer, thus shirking his usual duty simply because he didn't want to do it. Aw poor widdle baby. If only I could get out of half of my work so easily. OK so maybe my famnily won't be threatened if I make such-and-such a database, but if he's so worried about them being targeted perhaps he should choose a different line of work.
And if, as you sugeest, many police officers request transfers for all kinds of spruious reason, I can honestly say I'm very disappointed. I didn't realise that police officers - well, in the Met anyway - got to pick and choose which duties they did.
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette: And if, as you sugeest, many police officers request transfers for all kinds of spruious reason, I can honestly say I'm very disappointed. I didn't realise that police officers - well, in the Met anyway - got to pick and choose which duties they did.
But why shouldn't they be able to? If you don't want to do something, but there are people who wouldn't mind, then where's the harm in giving people the duties that they'd prefer doing? Doesn't that, in fact, lead to a situation where people are more likly to do their jobs better and with a greater degree of job satisfaction?
I see no problem in an employer striving for happy employees (especially as the job's a dangerous and thankless one as it is), if it's easy to achieve.
Just because someone's requested a transfer, it doesn't mean that the request will be granted. But if it's easy to do, then why not?
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he asked to be reassigned and some other policeman could do the job, I see no problem with it. We have a high profile case lawyer here in Sweden who is of Jewish descent and refuses to defend nazis, and I think that's perfectly reasonable, as long as someone can be found that gives them the protection the law requires.
There was a thread a while ago about children in German schools being taught to think for themselves and not obey an order they consider immoral or wrong. Even if one may or may not agree with the specific policeman, I most certainly prefer a police force that actually consider the morals of their orders and objects if they don't find them defendable. The alternative would be a blind force of obedient automatons who mindlessly carry out whatever order they where given, right or wrong, and I find that a lot more scary than a policeman who backs away due to his personal convictions.
One must, in this discussion, also remember that there is a big difference between doing something out of personal convictions and not doing something out of personal convictions. Just saying that he is not prepared to do this still allows for his CO to assign the task to someone else, but if he instead went out on his own agenda and actively chased groups he didn't like instead of doing his job (like former Stockholm county administrative chief of police, Hans Holmér, went after Kurds ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Holmer )), he would just be a vigilante.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette: And if, as you sugeest, many police officers request transfers for all kinds of spruious reason, I can honestly say I'm very disappointed. I didn't realise that police officers - well, in the Met anyway - got to pick and choose which duties they did.
Of course they can apply to work in different teams or departments, Mosh. Not everyone wants to be in CID, or the Drugs Squad, or the Traffic Squad. Officers can apply to do what interests them most, and as trollface observes, this is both reasonable and sensible.
AFAIK, Met. Police officers aren't allowed to stay in one department forever and have to transfer from time to time, anyway. I remember chatting to a guy in SO19 who was a bit put out by this.
ETA: Apropos of Troberg's post, I once heard the story of a traffic policeman with communist sympathies, who only ever stopped Jaguars and Bentleys.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette: I can't agree with you Dara, not on a moral level anyway (but what's new there eh? ) His duties as part of the Diplomatic protection Group was to protect diplomats and [speculation alert] it seems to me that when he discovered which diplomats he was to be protecting, he requested the transfer, thus shirking his usual duty simply because he didn't want to do it.
What is your basis for that assertion, though? It appears he had been acting in that role before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, without any problems. If I were to speculate, it would be to observe that, following Israel's invasion of Lebanon, there were daily protests from members of the Lebanese community outside the Israeli embassy, from groups ranging from anti-war campaigners to radical Islamists such as il-Muhijaroun. Someone from the Syrian-Lebanese community is of course much more at risk from identification and reprisals in those circumstance than someone not from that community.
The best parallel is with Irish officers being exempted from anti-terrorist roles in the 1990s because they had legitimate fears of reprisals. You can't, as an employer, expose your employees to unnecessary or unusual risk.
This officer would be at more risk in such a situation, since he has more chance of being identified, therefore it is reasonable for the Met to look favourably on a request for a transfer.
quote:Aw poor widdle baby.
I wish you hadn't said that, Mosh. It's beneath you.
Neither you nor I are in a position to decide whether or not his fears are legitimate, but they do seem to exist. He's not a coward for fearing reprisals. They have been known to happen.
quote:If only I could get out of half of my work so easily. OK so maybe my famnily won't be threatened if I make such-and-such a database, but if he's so worried about them being targeted perhaps he should choose a different line of work.
Or maybe his employers could take some action to alleviate his concerns? Why is that so unreasonable?
quote:And if, as you sugeest, many police officers request transfers for all kinds of spruious reason, I can honestly say I'm very disappointed. I didn't realise that police officers - well, in the Met anyway - got to pick and choose which duties they did.
What you call "picking and choosing duties," I call workplace flexibility. The transfer system in the Met, and in all police forces, is flexible, yes. Why is that such an issue? Why shouldn't people be able to move from role to role relatively easily, provided that the role is still being filled?
You seem to have made a judgement on this matter that isn't borne out by any of the available evidence. There is no suggestion that he has made this decision on some sort of racist or ideological grounds. Even if he has, the welfare argument is reasonable and his request would ergo be worthy of consideration.
Once more I need to reiterate that there is no suggestion that he has refused to do his duties; merely asked, through a system that is already in place, for his duties to be changed.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Embra: Superintendent Fizz
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. You're thinking of Commissioner bhur gCara. I'm just a millionaire philanthropist.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette: I can't agree with you Dara, not on a moral level anyway (but what's new there eh? ) His duties as part of the Diplomatic protection Group was to protect diplomats and [speculation alert] it seems to me that when he discovered which diplomats he was to be protecting, he requested the transfer, thus shirking his usual duty simply because he didn't want to do it.
What is your basis for that assertion, though? It appears he had been acting in that role before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, without any problems. If I were to speculate, it would be to observe that, following Israel's invasion of Lebanon, there were daily protests from members of the Lebanese community outside the Israeli embassy, from groups ranging from anti-war campaigners to radical Islamists such as il-Muhijaroun. Someone from the Syrian-Lebanese community is of course much more at risk from identification and reprisals in those circumstance than someone not from that community.
But you're just speculating there. So am I. Which if us is right? Neither of us.
quote: This officer would be at more risk in such a situation, since he has more chance of being identified, therefore it is reasonable for the Met to look favourably on a request for a transfer.
He was possibly more at risk.
quote:
quote:Aw poor widdle baby.
I wish you hadn't said that, Mosh. It's beneath you.
No it isn't. Frankly I think he's being a bit pathetic. And you have no idea what may or may not be beneath me, thanks.
quote: Neither you nor I are in a position to decide whether or not his fears are legitimate, but they do seem to exist. He's not a coward for fearing reprisals. They have been known to happen.
I question their legitimacy. No, he wouldn't be a coward if he feared reprisals, that would be an absurd thing to say. I repeat I believe if he's so worried about reprisals on his family from his job, he might be in the wrong job.
But I think he's overreacted to something he *thinks* might happen because of his ethnicity. There's no evidence for either of us - considering that the officer himself has yet to say anything - to say his fears are legitimate or not. Again, your "defence" of him is just as much speculation of him as my "attacks" are. Remember, the Met is investigating the matter and has said
quote:The authority, which has also asked for a report, said officers often had to undertake duties where the subject conflicted with their personal beliefs.
My italics. The Met themselves are questioning why this was allowed to happen. If they conclude his fears were justified, then I shall reconsider my position, but at the moment we have little evidence that they were.
quote:
quote: If only I could get out of half of my work so easily. OK so maybe my famnily won't be threatened if I make such-and-such a database, but if he's so worried about them being targeted perhaps he should choose a different line of work.
Or maybe his employers could take some action to alleviate his concerns? Why is that so unreasonable?
I never said it wasn't unreasonable, but then again we don't know if they are or aren't doing such a thing.
quote:
quote:And if, as you sugeest, many police officers request transfers for all kinds of spruious reason, I can honestly say I'm very disappointed. I didn't realise that police officers - well, in the Met anyway - got to pick and choose which duties they did.
What you call "picking and choosing duties," I call workplace flexibility. The transfer system in the Met, and in all police forces, is flexible, yes. Why is that such an issue? Why shouldn't people be able to move from role to role relatively easily, provided that the role is still being filled?
It's not the fact he moved roles, it's his purported reason for doing so I question and judge - and the fact he's now moved back to the role that he didn't want to do.
quote:You seem to have made a judgement on this matter that isn't borne out by any of the available evidence. There is no suggestion that he has made this decision on some sort of racist or ideological grounds. Even if he has, the welfare argument is reasonable and his request would ergo be worthy of consideration.
I never said he made the request on racist grounds. You may retract that statement.
I am of the opinion that there is more evidence he didn't want to do the job and found a sneaky way out of it rather than facing up to his responsibilities.
quote:Once more I need to reiterate that there is no suggestion that he has refused to do his duties; merely asked, through a system that is already in place, for his duties to be changed.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm saying he got out of his duty of protecting diplomats by misuse of a system that is already in place. If he doesn't want to protect diplomats he shouldn't be in the Diplomatic Protection Group - and if he does want to be in the Dipl0matic Protection Group, he should be willing to protect any and all diplomats, not ones he decides he is going to prtoect.
I'm not going to re-state my position on this any further, until more facts have come to light. Really, until then, we are all speculating. (Which is half of what this board is about, of course.)
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mosh, I don't see why an officer shouldn't be allowed to transfer to other duties on completely spurious grounds if it is not causing a big deal for the force.
If it were causing a big deal, then okay, some level of justification should come in. But it seems that the officer's request was easily accommodated.
Suppose for a moment that I inundate the BGS with requests that they analyse the interesting stones I keep finding in my garden. And because they indulge me, you are the lucky expert who gets to look at a tonne of sandstone each day. I would hope that after a while you might be allowed to do something else.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette:
quote:You seem to have made a judgement on this matter that isn't borne out by any of the available evidence. There is no suggestion that he has made this decision on some sort of racist or ideological grounds. Even if he has, the welfare argument is reasonable and his request would ergo be worthy of consideration.
I never said he made the request on racist grounds. You may retract that statement.
Never said you did say that. However, you did speculate that his objection was due to who he was being asked to protect, rather than the risks he was being asked to undergo:
quote:His duties as part of the Diplomatic protection Group was to protect diplomats and [speculation alert] it seems to me that when he discovered which diplomats he was to be protecting, he requested the transfer, thus shirking his usual duty simply because he didn't want to do it.
The implication there is that you felt that he objected to being asked to protect the Israeli embassy because it was the Israeli embassy. If that's not what you feel, then of course I retract and apologise. If it is how you feel, then I fail to understand your objection to my use of the term, since it is clearly the implication of the above.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, his request was easily accommodated at the time, but there is now an inquiry underway as to how it got accommodated.
Once more with feeling, it's not his making the request as such that bothers me. It's why he made it - and why he's now back on his original duty.
I find it usual that with most jobs, or at least all the ones I've had, you do what comes under your job description. For me, that's making databases and websites. That's all I do, all day every day, because I'm a database and web developer. If I were one of the enquiries team and an expert on sandstone, then I'd probably get all your sandstone requests as well. If I didn't want to be a database and web developer, I'd have to apply for another job.
(And besides, some of the types here would like nothing more than to look at a tonne of sandstone a day. They'd be like pigs in sh!t. Bless 'em.)
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:(And besides, some of the types here would like nothing more than to look at a tonne of sandstone a day. They'd be like pigs in sh!t. Bless 'em.)
I just got back from Aquifer properties and yes, they're like pigs in a poke down there - up to their necks in core, covered in fines and loving every second of it!
-------------------- This is where I come up with something right? Something really clever... Posts: 6552 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:His duties as part of the Diplomatic protection Group was to protect diplomats and [speculation alert] it seems to me that when he discovered which diplomats he was to be protecting, he requested the transfer, thus shirking his usual duty simply because he didn't want to do it.
The implication there is that you felt that he objected to being asked to protect the Israeli embassy because it was the Israeli embassy. If that's not what you feel, then of course I retract and apologise. If it is how you feel, then I fail to understand your objection to my use of the term, since it is clearly the implication of the above.
No no and thrice no! And beside, it's your inference, not my implication
I was trying to intimate something a long the lines of: he found out he would be guarding the Israeli embassy, though "But I am a Muslim with a Lebanese wife and a Syrian father; this may be bad for them" - NOT "Bastard Israelis! They can NFBSK off if they think I'm going to guard them!".
What I'm trying and it seems failing to clarify is that many police officers (see above link - which interestingly makes a point about Arsenal fans policing at Spurs matches!) must have this sort of problem, but I don't think it should be used as an excuse to change duties because I think if it matters so much to you, you've probably picked the wrong job to be doing. in the first place.
I must apologise for my out-of-character postings in this thread by the way... perhaps I should not participate in heated political debate when one of my applications is about to be audited. I'm a bit het up today.
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't think any civilised society should really be telling public servants to check their personal morality at the door, Embra
I apologise if my posts have given the impression that I want a brutal, one-morality-fits-all solution to this particular problem (that comes later, once the Lizardfolk have done my dirty work). There is of course room for reasonable accommodation in many cases. I just think that when push comes to shove in terms of resources, the bar should be set pretty high for those who want to be exempted from particular duties.
I’m particularly wary of people who want to avoid duties on the grounds of their objection to particular sections of society. The firefighters who refused to leaflet a Pride march are a good case in point. There is nothing I can think of in any religion that prevents leafleting per se (heck, some of them seem to thrive on it). I do not want to accept that public servants should be allowed to opt out of a duty towards the public because they harbour an objection to any particular quality or opinion that they attribute to some section or other of the public. I don’t think that’s a reasonable accommodation.
Should we assume that police officers who agree to duties at a BNP rally agree with the BNP’s policies simply because they didn’t object to turning out? Or should police officers be allowed to opt out of some duties on the grounds that they are, in fact, racist?
None of this prevents people from making a moral statement if their conviction is that they should not perform a particular duty, and their employer will not agree to an exemption. That moral statement would be resignation from the force and campaigning and voting for change.
quote: I don't see why a large organisation like the Met. Police, or the Fire Brigade, shouldn't try to accommodate the personal beliefs of an employee as long as it is compatible with the law.
There is already a legal requirement on them not to discriminate against their employees on the grounds of their religion or belief. And it seems that the police already do offer employees some choice in where they perform their duties as a matter of course (no football duties for Dara’s friend, for example).
-------------------- I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no reason why the police shouldn't offer officers as much flexibility in their assignments as they crave, so long as it doesn't impinge on operations.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later
quote:A Muslim police officer was excused duty guarding Israel's embassy for safety reasons, Scotland Yard has said.
The Sun newspaper said the officer was reassigned on "moral grounds" as he objected to Israeli actions in Lebanon.
The Diplomatic Protection Group officer, named as Pc Alexander Omar Basha, had Lebanese relatives.
But Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said the move was due to risk assessment - "not about political correctness".
The press release from The Met police isn't online yet, but they just read it out on the radio, and the following points should be noted:
1. The officer did not make a specific request to be moved from the duty, but raised it as a potential security concern.
2. The decision to do so was made by the commission on the basis of a risk assessment.
3. The officer in question continued to do his duties until such time as he was moved.
This is just a fuss about nothing. The Sun should be ashamed of themselves, and the BBC should be embarrassed that they're taking their news lead from The Sun.
-------------------- This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down. Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Embra: I apologise if my posts have given the impression that I want a brutal, one-morality-fits-all solution to this particular problem
So I don't have to think of you in a stormtrooper uniform, then?
I agree with the idea that public servants shouldn't be exempted from certain core functions just because of their views. But I am concerned that by manipulating those core functions (for example, having very highly trained and accordingly expensive firemen handing out leaflets instead of getting some unemployed yoofs to do it) certain jobs can be made off limits to religious minorities. that seems wrong to me.
In the case in the OP, I think it is a storm in a teacup, and Dara seems to have a point in singling out the Sun as the chief culprit.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should all have known better than to listen to the Sun :hangs head in shame:
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zachary Fizz: So I don't have to think of you in a stormtrooper uniform, then?
Have to, or want to?
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara: This is just a fuss about nothing. The Sun should be ashamed of themselves, and the BBC should be embarrassed that they're taking their news lead from The Sun.
On that I'm sure we can all agree.
Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zachary Fizz: So I don't have to think of you in a stormtrooper uniform, then?
Or any uniform.
quote:But I am concerned that by manipulating those core functions (for example, having very highly trained and accordingly expensive firemen handing out leaflets instead of getting some unemployed yoofs to do it) certain jobs can be made off limits to religious minorities.
I don't think it's "manipulation". That suggests that the top brigade brass are thinking something on the lines of "Heh. Check this out. Now we're going to make the Wee Free firefighters hand out leaflets at the distillery. On a Sunday! Snerk!"
-------------------- I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Embra should be compelled to remove her stormtrooper uniform (or, as she says, any uniform) if she doesn't want to.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) His duties as part of the Diplomatic protection Group was to protect diplomats and [speculation alert] it seems to me that when he discovered which diplomats he was to be protecting, he requested the transfer, thus shirking his usual duty simply because he didn't want to do it. Aw poor widdle baby. If only I could get out of half of my work so easily. OK so maybe my famnily won't be threatened if I make such-and-such a database, but if he's so worried about them being targeted perhaps he should choose a different line of work.
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm a bit het up today.
